The war continues – the war
against “isolationism,” that is. This time the latest blows are
being struck on the op ed page of the New York Times, where Rutgers
historian David Greenberg takes
up the cudgels
against these hated troglodytes. Bemoaning the sudden Republican turnabout on foreign policy, Professor Greenberg notes his surprise that the all-too-“predictable”
response of GOP presidential candidates to President Obama’s Afghanistan
speech wasn’t all that predictable after all: several declared his
withdrawal announcement “too little, too late.” In the Republican-controlled
House, too, some have the nerve to question the President’s legal
authority to take us to war without congressional authorization –
and, as if all that wasn’t enough, GOP’ers afflicted with “balanced
budget mania” have gone on a veritable rampage, and are actually talking
about “scaling back defense spending of a sort that Republicans would
once have never dared broach.”

So, what does all this add
up to, in Greenberg’s view? Well, this:

“Suddenly,
after the aggressive, militaristic foreign policy of the Bush years,
isolationism — a stance that rejects America’s leadership role in
the world — is on the rise among Republicans.”

If you don’t
sign on to the idea that America must exercise a “leadership role
in the world” – i.e. if you don’t’ think we should be invading
countries left and right and footing the bill for all kinds of international
welfare schemes – you’re somebody who wants to “isolate” America
from the rest of the universe, no doubt by building a crocodile-filled
moat on the border and posting a “Keep Out!” sign (in English
only) just in case potential interlopers fail to take the hint.

By posing a
false choice between a hyperactive foreign policy and an “isolationist”
one, the War Party gets to argue as if they
are the reasonable ones, and everyone else – in this case, most of
the country – are marginal cranks. At this point, they get out their
canned history lesson, and lecture us on the evils of our “isolationist”
past, as does Professor Greenberg:

“But if
this comes as an abrupt break, it is also a return to form: the impulse
to retreat from the world stage has a long and hardy pedigree within
Republican ranks. And while a dose of caution among conservatives can
be refreshing, a Tea Party-led reversion to a dogmatic America First
stance could damage both the party and the country.

“Modern
Republican isolationism began with the 1919 battle over joining the
League of Nations, when Senate Republicans, led by so-called Irreconcilables
like William Borah of Idaho, killed the deal
— even though without American guidance, European affairs were doomed
to explode again. A pattern emerged, as liberal Democrats, along with
Northeastern Republicans, wanted America to actively manage world affairs,
while the Republicans’ powerful Midwestern and Western factions viewed
cooperative international ventures as dangerously entangling alliances.”

Greenberg’s
historical overview is pretty much the Establishment party line: always
there have been those “forward-looking” “progressive” leaders,
like Woodrow Wilson, who campaigned tirelessly to get the US entangled
in Europe’s intrigues and her endless wars: and always, opposing these
noble souls, there have been those nasty “Irreconcilables” – even
the name sounds unreasonable, fanatic – who somehow doubted mortal
men could “actively manage world affairs.” What could possibly motivate
these Irreconcilables, other than pure malicious contrarianism?

“The isolationists
had complex motives: Congressional vigilance against presidential encroachments
on their constitutional powers; a small-town obsession with balanced
budgets; and conspiratorial suspicions of foreigners, financiers and
— in the case of anti-Semites like Charles A. Lindbergh
— Jews. Naturally, isolationism thrived among Congressional Republicans
when a Democrat held the White House
— as it does again today — but it continued through the Coolidge
and Hoover years, too.”

Those mean-minded
members of Congress who think the Constitution must be obeyed – they’re
just selfish reactionaries, obsessed with maintaining their own power.
And as for those who think we need to live within our means and balance
the federal budget – they’re just small-town “obsessives,” and
probably anti-Semites to boot.

Left out of
Greenberg’s pocket version of American history is World War I –
and its legacy, which embittered an entire generation of American liberals
who really did believe it was a “war to make the world safe for democracy.”
That is, until they saw the “peace” it created, which planted the
seeds for yet another – and far bloodier – world conflagration.
That was the warning of the “Irreconcilables,” who saw the United
States becoming an empire molded on the British model and – quite
rightly – wanted no part of it.

Also left out
of Greenberg’s historical overview: the opponents of the “isolationists,”
who, in the post-WWI era, were an ominous-sounding group known as the
“League to Enforce Peace.” The Enforcers wanted to set up a world
government, with the US and Britain at its head: anyone who looked cross-eyed
at these Global Governors would be promptly invaded, subdued, and occupied.
That was their idea of “peace” – pretty much the same vision upheld
by today’s internationalists, except they hadn’t yet thought of
proposing a World Central Bank.

A whole range
of figures come up for Greenberg’s opprobrium: Robert A. Taft, Phyliss
Schlafly, radio host Paul Harvey, as well as Lindbergh: Taft for opposing
NATO and the sacred idea of “collective security” (i.e. setting
tripwires for war), Schlafly and Harvey for questioning the wisdom of
the Vietnam war (Abbie Hoffman and the New York Times editorial
page are exempted from the “isolationist” label, although they too
opposed that foolish war.)

“Right-wing
isolationism” was thought to have died out when Eisenhower stole the
GOP presidential nomination from Taft, but no: the monster lives!
It reemerged in the 1990s, on account of the fall of the Soviet Union,
and “the perception that Mr. [George Herbert Walker] Bush’s foreign
affairs focus blinded him to economic suffering at home” (how unreasonable!).
This led Republicans to wonder what we were doing in the Balkans –
that maelstrom of unresolvable conflicts – siding with Osama bin Laden.
Those isolationist cranks! Will they never learn?

And now, when
the world “needs the US” to lead it to “stability” more than
ever, there they are again – the isolationists are once more on the
scene, doing their mischief. Who will rid us of these troublesome troglodytes?
Professor Greenberg to the rescue!

“And this
time, the G.O.P.’s old Eastern wing, which used to provide internationalist
ballast, is almost nonexistent. A healthy democracy needs critics, particularly
when it engages in risky overseas adventures. But the doctrinaire call
to drastically scale back our global leadership role has usually led
us into error, making the world a more chaotic and dangerous place.
Following the path of isolationism today won’t serve America well.
Nor will it help the Republicans.”

Let us take
a moment, before getting into the meat of the matter, to rejoice that
the Eastern Establishment of the Republican party – the old Rockefeller
wing – is dead and buried. From the Lodge clan to the Rockefeller
faction, these Big Government-friendly patricians have manipulated both
their party and the federal government into enriching the investment
bankers they have always served so faithfully. This has been their modus
operandi throughout our history, from the invasion and occupation of
Panama to secure the Canal right up to modern times, when the Rockefeller
wing schemed (successfully) to get us into World War II in the Pacific
(the rubber trade of Southeast Asia and the vast China market were in
their sights).

One has to
ask Professor Greenberg: who is being “doctrinaire,” here – the
interventionists (like himself) who adhere to a failed policy of global
meddling, which has gotten us into nothing but trouble and costs us
trillions, or the “isolationists” who are saying it’s time for
a new course?

Greenberg’s
point is that non-intervention is not a new course, but rather an old
pattern that was broken by his heroes Wilson and FDR – but what he
leaves out is that the “isolationists” lost. Their advice
– stay out of both world wars, mind our own business, abjure the temptations
of empire – wasn’t followed: instead, we chose a path to “world
leadership,” and now that the American Imperium is crumbling on everyfrontier some are beginning to call its alleged necessity into question.

It is Greenberg
and his fellow interventionists who are the doctrinaires. Not since
the end of World War II have we tried any policy other than asserting
our alleged right to “world leadership.” But what if the world doesn’t
want to be led – especially by us?

Well, then,
these latter-day adherents of the League to Enforce Peace will just
go in there and start enforcing, whether the world likes it or
not.

Except that
well-worn policy isn’t working out very well for us, as any objective
observer of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia
will testify. We are coming to the end of our ability – and Americans’
willingness – to police the world. Call that “small town” if you
will, but an empire is a luxury we can no longer afford. If Greenberg
and the War Party’s academic detachment can’t or won’t reconcile
themselves to the economic and political facts of reality, then it is
they who are the true Irreconcilables.

Why are so many, like this Professor Greenburg, so threatened by a change in the status quo? The very idea that things could change seems to provoke the strongest responses. I don't understand this fear and loathing reaction.

Justin: That was another great history lesson. I think professor Greenberg forgot to mention all the leftwing non interventionists. That is people like George Norris, the LaFollettes, William Jennigs Bryan, William Langer, Gerald Nye, Burton K. Wheeler, Joseph Kennedy, JFK, Victor L. Berger etc. The Republicans who are discovering their small government roots are the best thing to happen to this country in decades. Let the left show some balls and run a candiate against Obama and his wars. If Kucinnich ran this time I expect he might get a lot of votes.

"Isolationism..a stance that rejects America's leadership role in the world"….

SO WHAT? Why does America have to be the world's "leader"? (More like bully I would say). How does it benefit the ordinary American? And given our record I would say the world would be a lot better off without American "leadership". Especially when that "leadership" consists largely of dropping bombs on other countries and occasionally invading them.

The "Republican turnabout on foreign policy" may be sincere, but I doubt it.

If the R's are really interested in ending our 5 wars, hooray. But i doubt very much that their turnabout is based on some deeply held pacifist principles. Instead, they are doing it just for the sake of disagreeing with Obama. These guys change positions at the drop of hat, based on politics. They have no principles about anything.

For now, any anti-war stance will make them useful idiots, but don't hold your breath.

Ron Paul has been anti-war, but he is the only republican that has not flip flopped on the issue. I am a real constitutionalist like paul, not like the fake ones on either side of the isle. Being a constitutionalist, I am an isolationist, as the founders wanted us to be.

Isolation, a well informed and effective policy of keeping the healthy from being contaminated by the ill, is of course condemned by those like Greenberg who have been terminally afflicted with the feverish desire for empire that is in the process of destroying the American republic both physically and in spirit. No. America is not the leader; it is being led into the political intrigues of other nations and being bankrupted in the process.

greenberg….hmm well i'm pretty sure we can guess where that zionist gets his marching orders from. and as some have suggested, rather than rail against isolationism, let's look at what we've reaped from intervention; bankruptcy, millions upon millions dead, no rule of law, our republic in tatters and for what? so a bunch of corporate fascists can profit on the death of our kids for israel?? vietnam sure worked out great, ditto korea and all the other places we've conducted murder in. how many countries ever wanted our assistance/to be invaded? where are the people of the world begging for our help? there aren't any. moreover what other nations have been so ridiculously self important as to think they had the answers for others?? and when answering those questions, ask yourself where are those countries now? just because a nation doesn't invade and murder another nation's citizens doesn't make it isolationist. it also doesn't mean that if you don't invade that you can't trade and conduct relations with like minded nations.

Greenberg lies? This should surprise no one. Lying is just standard MO for neoconservatives, whose founding philosopher Leo Strauss found the "useful" lie morally acceptable. Moreover, of course former Trotskyites, dreaming of taking over the world, should find a home among them. They, too, believed that truth was malleable.

People like Greenberg and his cohorts are a bigger danger to the health and well-being of our nation than the communists ever were in the '50's. They dishonestly masquerade as patriots, happy to use American resources for ends to benefit parties other than the United States, and when they're found, out respond with false indignation.

Could not agree more. The world is in a bad need of true leadership that solves problems without using the leadership position to profit from conflicts, weak economic and military positions of others.
I am afraid that the threat Greenberg is so afraid of, in reality does not exist. The few Republicans and even fewer Democrats are committed to the dismantling of emperial governance. Very, very few. The others are creating only sound effects to confuse electorate. We, the public are at fault. We accept the duality our party system dishes out. Each has a favorite narrative, and we buy it. As if anything other then TWO options is too much for the public. Therefore, "the business friendly" Republicans are against tax incrases, while "helping the ordinary people" Democrats are for protecting "entitlements". Never mind that both narratives are bogus, and only an empty straw thrown to the electorate to chew on. The parties are essentially same, with some public "disagreements" so they have something to run on. When will we ever learn…

us foreigng,defence,and economic plcies are determined in london or washington by british agents.
that includes msot of the media and hollywood and most of the southern baptis church traitors to america
the British launching of Japan into wars against China, and the London-steered assassination of U.S. President William McKinley. The McKinley assassination had the crucial function of shifting control of the U.S. Presidency from the U.S. traditional orientation of friendship toward both Bismarck's Germany and Russia, by putting the U.S. Presidency in the hands of a dutiful nephew of a Confederate spy, Theodore Roosevelt, and, a bit later, a fervent champion of the Ku Klux Klan, London's asset Woodrow Wilson. It was only with the election of President Franklin Roosevelt, that the U.S. Presidency fell again into the hands of a true U.S. patriot, as the death of Franklin Roosevelt put the Presidency back into the hands of a Wall Street tool and Churchill accomplice, Harry S Truman.”

An Anglophile to the core, ku kulx klan stooge Wilson didn't care about the fate of the Russians. His concern was in keeping German forces split along two fronts. The payoff worked: Russia's provisional prime minister Aleksandr Kerensky kept the Russians involved in the war.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected to the presidency chiefly on the strength of a slogan: "He kept us out of war." By 1917, the peacenik prez was leading the charge against Germany, jailing antiwar activists, and exhorting Americans to fight a "war to end all wars." In 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the voters: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Behind the scenes, however, he was maneuvering to do just that – and by the end of 1941, we were fighting a two-front war, embracing "Uncle" Joe Stalin as a fellow "anti-fascist," and planning the internment of the Japanese-American population.

nato is an organisation created to serve the piracy and bullying of the thrid rate country england after the second world war-america did nto need nato england needed that to serve her purpose onback of american arms
“isolationist” (realy an anti-meddling) is a code word used by england and her agents in usa to decry those people in america who donot want the whole of usa resources put to the benefit of english race and england and who may not want the peprpetaul wars being waged by england on the strenthg of american arms
NATO is an organisation created to maintain the pwoer of england throughamericna arms to bully germany and europeans and to keep russia down all for beenfit of england and usa got sukced into it through british agents in usd media and politics and business.that is what isonalist means one who is not willing to sacrifice for the beenfit of england.

“isolationist” (realy an anti-meddling) is a code word used by england and her agents in usa to decry those people in america who donot want the whole of usa resources put to the benefit of english race and england and who may not want the peprpetaul wars being waged by england on the strenthg of american arms

Greenberg is just another Zionist, Israel firster, neocon, 5th columnist rehashing old war party propaganda. Read "the transparent cabal" (available at some university's websites for e reading) and you'll understand what this constant war is all about. My interpretation of Libya: another attempt to weaken and split up another country in the sphere of Israeli influence using the cover of promoting democracy/human rights. In this particular case, Obama is attempting to shore up Jewish support after several high profile Israel lobby/peace-process run-in's before his reelection bid.

Isn't this anti-isolationism built on the premise, that people left to freedom will become evil, dominating, abusing? They will not become harmonious and peaceful. Because from introspection Americans know for sure that is what they themselves overwhelmingly turned into after 2 centuries of aggression and control grabbing. The world, and life itself, is a PUBLIC SHOW and meaning of life consists in WINNING the show.

It is important to note that the neocon theology infiltrated the GOP betweem Goldwater and Reagan. The left saw that their policies were falling out of favor, that conservatism and libertarianism were on the rise, and they donned sheeps clothing and defected from the Democrat party to the Republican.

Remember, in 2000 the Bush machine ran on a "Humble foreign policy, no nation building, no policing the world" platform. Some point to 9/11 as the crossroads where the US went astray, but really we had been on the interventionist path for generations, hence the attack. With few exceptions we have been presided over by leftists, progressives of the D and R variety, and our foreign policy is the primary place where that ideology manifests itself.

Distraction accomplished. In the meantime, the ASSUMPTION that Libertarians will lead us out of the economy-busting foreign policy — is a false hope. Take Rand Paul, for example. His priority is to encourage citizens to BELIEVE that the unravalling economy is — the fault of Unions! The more power is given away to corporations that are ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, the more wars we will have.
"National Right to Work Act Petition to:
My U.S. Senators and Congressman
Whereas: Federal law permits Big Labor to confiscate $8 billion from American workers’ paychecks every year just to get or keep a job;
Whereas: This forced unionism breeds violent strikes and a hate-the-boss mentality which drive good jobs overseas, jack up prices and risk re-igniting inflation:
Whereas: Union-puppet politicians routinely vote for higher taxes, bailouts, job-killing bureaucracy and even more porkbarrel spending keeping our nation locked in recession"
Whereas: You get the picture….
Riiiiight, that is our BIGGEST problem. Not the banks, not the corporate tax cheaters. I am no longer buying Libertarian faux objections to empire. They just want to build a bigger, and stronger one.

Isn't this anti-isolationism built on the premise, that people left to freedom will become evil, dominating, abusing?

Given that the average Amoricon doesn't have a clue what "freedom" really means and ascribes only that (false) definition given the term by the State's propaganda outlets, I can only imagine what the answer to this question would be.

I think Bill has a point. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who has been obviously consistent and sincere in his anti-war, anti-interventionist, anti-empire philosophy. The rest of the party are rank, hypocritical opportunists who will revert to form as soon as the Sepia-skinned Sockpuppet is chucked out of the Oval Office. For the most recent historical example, refer to the night-day shift in attitude that occurred once Slick Willie Clinton departed and Monkey Boy Bush took over.

Walter Jones MIGHT be anti-war on principle, but I think the jury is still out on that. I have a strong feeling that his reasons for swimming against the prevailing GOP tide are more pragmatic than principled.

In order to have even a remotely credible claim on actual leadership-by-example (as opposed to the interventionist gangsterism that has been the status quo for the last 66 years), the UFSA must revert back to being the USA, embracing its constitutional roots and all the ideals and behaviors that attend to them. Otherwise, there is no moral claim to leadership.

Unfortunately, the chances of such a rebirth occurring are so remote as to be laughable.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].